<snip>Its predecessor was the League of Nations, an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I. Of course we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
<snip>
Since the League of Nations was formed after World War One, its disbandment must also have been “after the outbreak of World War I”, but not, as you appear to imply, as a consequence of the outbreak of World War I. The USA never joined the League of Nations. Japan and Germany left in 1933, Italy left in 1937, and Spain left in 1939. The Soviet Union only joined in 1934 and was expelled in 1939. The League was formally dissolved in 1946. (Source)
Mr E has stated that the League of Nations was both a) started after WW1, and b) started with the purpose of preventing WWI. Until he clarifies his understanding of the chronology, there's probably not much point in engaging him.
Since you have engaged, I'm happy to respond. As a quick aside @BroJames when you insist that a member "stated" something, you really should quote what it is that you are insisting. Poor form. One might think you are prone to intellectual dishonesty. Since you engaged...
For the record, I did not state that
the League of Nations was both a) started after WW1, and b) started with the purpose of preventing WWI.
What I actually said was:
a) The League of Nations was
an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
b)
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I
c)
we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
Mate, WW1 started in 1914 and ended in 1918. Any organisation formed in 1919 cannot possibly have been disbanded as a result of its outbreak. Your point (b) is factually incorrect. You made a mistake. Admit it and move on.
Again.
Where did I ever say that it disbanded as a result of the outbreak of WWI? I said it was disbanded AFTER the outbreak of WWI because it was proven ineffectual at preventing global conflict. That includes, but isn't limited to the outbreak of WW2. Maybe you are not a student of those wars, but I am. Do a quick google search.
The League could not stop major conflicts in the 1930s, such as the Japanese invasion of Manchuria (1932), the Italian invasion of Abyssinia (1935), and the onset of World War II in 1939.
Structural Weaknesses: The organization lacked its own military, and member nations were reluctant to provide troops, making enforcement impossible. The requirement for unanimous decisions often led to inaction.
Limited Membership: Major powers were absent or left the organization, including the United States (which never joined), and Germany, Japan, and Italy, who withdrew in the 1930s.
Rise of the United Nations: Following its failure, the League was deemed too weak to be reformed, leading to its replacement by the more robust United Nations, which held its planning conference in 1944
There was also that small act of aggression at Pearl Harbor, that the League was ineffectual at preventing.
The League of Nations headquarters was the Palace of Nations, which sat unoccupied from 1936 until that "formal" disbanding in 1946.
You could be gracious and not put words in my mouth that never came out of it.
There are reports that some commanders have been briefing their men that the action against Iran is the start of Armageddon and will bring about the return of Christ:
<snip>Its predecessor was the League of Nations, an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I. Of course we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
<snip>
Since the League of Nations was formed after World War One, its disbandment must also have been “after the outbreak of World War I”, but not, as you appear to imply, as a consequence of the outbreak of World War I. The USA never joined the League of Nations. Japan and Germany left in 1933, Italy left in 1937, and Spain left in 1939. The Soviet Union only joined in 1934 and was expelled in 1939. The League was formally dissolved in 1946. (Source)
Mr E has stated that the League of Nations was both a) started after WW1, and b) started with the purpose of preventing WWI. Until he clarifies his understanding of the chronology, there's probably not much point in engaging him.
Since you have engaged, I'm happy to respond. As a quick aside @BroJames when you insist that a member "stated" something, you really should quote what it is that you are insisting. Poor form. One might think you are prone to intellectual dishonesty. . . .
Any questions?
Well, if you’re going to insist that others quote you to show they’re accurately reflecting what you stated:
The League of Nations headquarters was the Palace of Nations, which sat unoccupied from 1936 until that "formal" disbanding in 1946. That isn't what I was referencing, rather that it had become ineffectual after the break out of WWI, which it was formulated to prevent.
It didn't. WWII was just another example of that ineffectiveness.
(Emphasis added.)
If you can see down from that high horse you’re on (or are), you should be able to see that you very much appear to have said the League of Nations was formulated to prevent WWI. I really can’t see any other way to read what I’ve just quoted, especially since you added that WWII was “another example of [the League’s] ineffectiveness, which in context has to mean WWI was the first example.
<snip>Its predecessor was the League of Nations, an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I. Of course we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
<snip>
Since the League of Nations was formed after World War One, its disbandment must also have been “after the outbreak of World War I”, but not, as you appear to imply, as a consequence of the outbreak of World War I. The USA never joined the League of Nations. Japan and Germany left in 1933, Italy left in 1937, and Spain left in 1939. The Soviet Union only joined in 1934 and was expelled in 1939. The League was formally dissolved in 1946. (Source)
Mr E has stated that the League of Nations was both a) started after WW1, and b) started with the purpose of preventing WWI. Until he clarifies his understanding of the chronology, there's probably not much point in engaging him.
Since you have engaged, I'm happy to respond. As a quick aside @BroJames when you insist that a member "stated" something, you really should quote what it is that you are insisting. Poor form. One might think you are prone to intellectual dishonesty. Since you engaged...
For the record, I did not state that
the League of Nations was both a) started after WW1, and b) started with the purpose of preventing WWI.
What I actually said was:
a) The League of Nations was
an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
b)
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I
c)
we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
Mate, WW1 started in 1914 and ended in 1918. Any organisation formed in 1919 cannot possibly have been disbanded as a result of its outbreak. Your point (b) is factually incorrect. You made a mistake. Admit it and move on.
Again.
Where did I ever say that it disbanded as a result of the outbreak of WWI? I said it was disbanded AFTER the outbreak of WWI because it was proven ineffectual at preventing global conflict.
Why did you specify "after the outbreak of WWI"? What is the relevance of that to the timing or motivation of the dissolution of the League?
There are reports that some commanders have been briefing their men that the action against Iran is the start of Armageddon and will bring about the return of Christ:
I've never been convinced that this 'Christ will return' business is actually true...that the world, as we know it, may be destroyed by the folly of dictators, and their weapons, is another matter. That seems much more likely.
<snip>Its predecessor was the League of Nations, an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I. Of course we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
<snip>
Since the League of Nations was formed after World War One, its disbandment must also have been “after the outbreak of World War I”, but not, as you appear to imply, as a consequence of the outbreak of World War I. The USA never joined the League of Nations. Japan and Germany left in 1933, Italy left in 1937, and Spain left in 1939. The Soviet Union only joined in 1934 and was expelled in 1939. The League was formally dissolved in 1946. (Source)
Mr E has stated that the League of Nations was both a) started after WW1, and b) started with the purpose of preventing WWI. Until he clarifies his understanding of the chronology, there's probably not much point in engaging him.
Since you have engaged, I'm happy to respond. As a quick aside @BroJames when you insist that a member "stated" something, you really should quote what it is that you are insisting. Poor form. One might think you are prone to intellectual dishonesty. Since you engaged...
For the record, I did not state that
the League of Nations was both a) started after WW1, and b) started with the purpose of preventing WWI.
What I actually said was:
a) The League of Nations was
an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
b)
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I
c)
we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
Mate, WW1 started in 1914 and ended in 1918. Any organisation formed in 1919 cannot possibly have been disbanded as a result of its outbreak. Your point (b) is factually incorrect. You made a mistake. Admit it and move on.
Again.
Where did I ever say that it disbanded as a result of the outbreak of WWI? I said it was disbanded AFTER the outbreak of WWI because it was proven ineffectual at preventing global conflict.
Why did you specify "after the outbreak of WWI"? What is the relevance of that to the timing or motivation of the dissolution of the League?
I'll type this slowly so everyone can read and calm down....
AFTER the outbreak of WWI the Treaty of Versailles was signed and the League of Nations was formed. With me so far?
It was found to be weak and ineffectual and unable to fulfill it's stated purpose, which was, once again- "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
Many conflicts ensued including another global conflict known as WWII.
The League of Nations was then abandoned, and then disbanded.
I suppose that, technically, 1919 (and the Treaty of Versailles) can be said to be after the outbreak of WW1 in 1914. And after the Armistice, too, of course.
I suppose that, technically, 1919 (and the Treaty of Versailles) can be said to be after the outbreak of WW1 in 1914. And after the Armistice, too, of course.
The League of Nations was also formed after the outbreak of the First Punic War, but failed to stop the Second Punic War. Odd that Mr. E. doesn’t reference that in his analysis.
<snip>Its predecessor was the League of Nations, an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I. Of course we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
<snip>
Since the League of Nations was formed after World War One, its disbandment must also have been “after the outbreak of World War I”, but not, as you appear to imply, as a consequence of the outbreak of World War I. The USA never joined the League of Nations. Japan and Germany left in 1933, Italy left in 1937, and Spain left in 1939. The Soviet Union only joined in 1934 and was expelled in 1939. The League was formally dissolved in 1946. (Source)
Mr E has stated that the League of Nations was both a) started after WW1, and b) started with the purpose of preventing WWI. Until he clarifies his understanding of the chronology, there's probably not much point in engaging him.
Since you have engaged, I'm happy to respond. As a quick aside @BroJames when you insist that a member "stated" something, you really should quote what it is that you are insisting. Poor form. One might think you are prone to intellectual dishonesty. Since you engaged...
For the record, I did not state that
the League of Nations was both a) started after WW1, and b) started with the purpose of preventing WWI.
What I actually said was:
a) The League of Nations was
an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
b)
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I
c)
we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
Any questions? Please go hang your hat on someone else's peg. I'm always happy to pleasantly engage with anyone, particularly if they are pleasant. You seem intent on going some other direction. I'm not your huckleberry.
At some point you are actually going to read what you've written. And realise how long you've been defending a comedy typo.
And he actually continued to defend it AFTER it was pointed out that it was a typo, and at least once more used "WWI" in a context where only "WWII" would make sense.
The League of Nations headquarters was the Palace of Nations, which sat unoccupied from 1936 until that "formal" disbanding in 1946. That isn't what I was referencing, rather that it had become ineffectual after the break out of WWI, which it was formulated to prevent.
I suppose that, technically, 1919 (and the Treaty of Versailles) can be said to be after the outbreak of WW1 in 1914. And after the Armistice, too, of course.
Thank you for that. sigh.
You're welcome, though I'm still not quite certain what point you're trying to make, or what it has to do with the ongoing war in the Middle East.
I suppose that, technically, 1919 (and the Treaty of Versailles) can be said to be after the outbreak of WW1 in 1914. And after the Armistice, too, of course.
Thank you for that. sigh.
You're welcome, though I'm still not quite certain what point you're trying to make, or what it has to do with the ongoing war in the Middle East.
The point was simple for everyone but the nitpicking gnat-strainers.
My sole point was in response to @Crœsos who said:
The question of the "effectiveness" of the UN depends on what you think it's supposed to do. If you think it's supposed to prevent all wars and most forms of preventable human suffering, then yes, it's not very effective. On the other hand if you take the historical view that the purpose of the UN is to prevent open war between the Great Powers (however defined), which was more or less how it was designed, then the UN has been incredibly effective.
That was inaccurate, or as I suggested- "slightly revisionist" as the point of the UN was, as it's predecessor, the League of Nations, really was to prevent all wars. The larger point was and why it's relevant to this thread topic (War) is that many feel that the UN is equally as ineffective at preventing wars today as ever, in either iteration.
"The United Nations was created in 1945 primarily to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war"
I suppose that, technically, 1919 (and the Treaty of Versailles) can be said to be after the outbreak of WW1 in 1914. And after the Armistice, too, of course.
Thank you for that. sigh.
You're welcome, though I'm still not quite certain what point you're trying to make, or what it has to do with the ongoing war in the Middle East.
The point was simple for everyone but the nitpicking gnat-strainers.
My sole point was in response to @Crœsos who said:
The question of the "effectiveness" of the UN depends on what you think it's supposed to do. If you think it's supposed to prevent all wars and most forms of preventable human suffering, then yes, it's not very effective. On the other hand if you take the historical view that the purpose of the UN is to prevent open war between the Great Powers (however defined), which was more or less how it was designed, then the UN has been incredibly effective.
That was inaccurate, or as I suggested- "slightly revisionist" as the point of the UN was, as it's predecessor, the League of Nations, really was to prevent all wars. The larger point was and why it's relevant to this thread topic (War) is that many feel that the UN is equally as ineffective at preventing wars today as ever, in either iteration.
Why the "many feel"? If it's your opinion, own it without the backing of an ephemeral "many". If it's not, why bother?
If the UN was expected to prevent all wars (rather than merely having it as a laudable but unattainable aim) surely it would have been given up as a bad job in 1948 when giving away half of Palestine led to open war? Or at the Korean War, maybe.
If the UN was expected to prevent all wars (rather than merely having it as a laudable but unattainable aim) surely it would have been given up as a bad job in 1948 when giving away half of Palestine led to open war? Or at the Korean War, maybe.
I remain light-hearted here, but that is kind of the point. If the body is ineffectual, there's that word again, at doing what it's stated purpose is, then why bother with it? In essence, as can easily be demonstrated, nations at times, pay no heed to it's declarations, demands and decrees.
Is this an informal discussion, or is every member required to provide some sort of citation for everything they say? If so-- AI can be your new friend.
Yes, a significant number of people, including global leaders and the public, feel the UN is ineffectual at preventing wars, with polls indicating 63% of Americans rate its job performance poorly. Criticism centers on its inability to stop major conflicts, veto-driven paralysis in the Security Council, and a lack of enforcement power.
I'm going to exit the thread, as a diverse opinion seems so troubling for some to hear. Usually, among the mature, it would be stimulating and welcome, but alas.
World War I broke out and after that outbreak "the world" thought-- let's have a body-- a league of Nations-- United in purpose to prevent future wars. The experiment failed then, just as it is failing now.... and "many" people agree with that sentiment.
AI is pretty much the opposite of a citation. And I don't really give a toss what 63% of Americans think about the UN, given the propaganda directed at literally for decades.
There are reports that some commanders have been briefing their men that the action against Iran is the start of Armageddon and will bring about the return of Christ:
In my experience, reports from rawstory need to be taken with several containers of salt. They have been popping up on my feed for a couple years now, often with stories declaring firmly that such-and-such occurrence is "the end of Trump." As such, I question their objectivity. And accuracy. YMMV.
There are reports that some commanders have been briefing their men that the action against Iran is the start of Armageddon and will bring about the return of Christ:
In my experience, reports from rawstory need to be taken with several containers of salt. They have been popping up on my feed for a couple years now, often with stories declaring firmly that such-and-such occurrence is "the end of Trump." As such, I question their objectivity. And accuracy. YMMV.
In general I'd agree - but in this case they had lifted the post from someone's substack and I didn't want to link to that -- and in any case it seemed to match similar stories coming from social media, not all of which were critical.
In any case, the watchdog that they are alleged to have made complaints to has since been contacted by the mainstream press:
<snip>Its predecessor was the League of Nations, an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I. Of course we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
<snip>
Since the League of Nations was formed after World War One, its disbandment must also have been “after the outbreak of World War I”, but not, as you appear to imply, as a consequence of the outbreak of World War I. The USA never joined the League of Nations. Japan and Germany left in 1933, Italy left in 1937, and Spain left in 1939. The Soviet Union only joined in 1934 and was expelled in 1939. The League was formally dissolved in 1946. (Source)
Mr E has stated that the League of Nations was both a) started after WW1, and b) started with the purpose of preventing WWI. Until he clarifies his understanding of the chronology, there's probably not much point in engaging him.
Since you have engaged, I'm happy to respond. As a quick aside @BroJames when you insist that a member "stated" something, you really should quote what it is that you are insisting. Poor form. One might think you are prone to intellectual dishonesty. Since you engaged...
For the record, I did not state that
the League of Nations was both a) started after WW1, and b) started with the purpose of preventing WWI.
What I actually said was:
a) The League of Nations was
an organization formed in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles -under a similar stated purpose --"to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
b)
It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I
c)
we all know what came after WWI, an utter failure on the part of the League of Nations to prevent another global conflict.
Any questions? Please go hang your hat on someone else's peg. I'm always happy to pleasantly engage with anyone, particularly if they are pleasant. You seem intent on going some other direction. I'm not your huckleberry.
Although you name me in your post, or your comments appear to be addressed to the content of a post by stetson.
For the record, I did quote the parts of your post to which I was referring, and my post didn’t say the you had “stated” anything.
Your jibe about intellectual dishonesty is misplaced.
Re Cyprus again. Presumably the why is because it is on the western flank of Lebanon and therefore maybe they wanted to take out anything that could cause trouble in Lebanon.
Latest seems to imply Germany has met with Trump and France is gearing up.
Will the western nations get more involved?
Iran has been responsible for at least two attacks in Australia and as I understand it Starmer said they were responsible for 20 in the last year in the UK.
Latest seems to imply Germany has met with Trump and France is gearing up.
Will the western nations get more involved?
Iran has been responsible for at least two attacks in Australia and as I understand it Starmer said they were responsible for 20 in the last year in the UK.
What kind of "attacks" are we talking about? Cyber?
I'm not sure what you mean by France "gearing up". Getting involved in what French people will see as America's war is not going to play well here. Unlike Keir Starmer, I don't think Macron cares about upsetting Trump. Macron enjoys confrontation.
It's also worth noting that France never went to Iraq so we have form on not joining ill-thought out American ventures in the Middle East. Most of us feel quite proud of that in hindsight, although IMO it was almost certainly the right decision for the wrong reasons. (Essentially, (a) Saddam was Jacques Chirac's mate and (b) faced with a choice between pissing off the Americans and pissing off the Arabs, Chirac thought he had more to lose from pissing off the Arabs.)
It's unclear what Trump's endgame is now. Well, I guess the collapse of the Iranian regime would be something, but then you wonder at what would happen next. A pro-western regime? Another possibility is anarchy. There is a chilling reminder that when Libya broke into pieces, the West abandoned it. I guess Trump is in the dark.
Forgetting there that the US would want fat oil contracts. What's the point of killing so many people if you can't make a buck?
I think the US admin is a mix of those who are in it for the money, those who think they can force the second coming, and those who just really hate Muslims and/or brown people. Trump is clearly the former, Hegseth is probably mostly the latter with a dash of the middle.
To be precise, they're enjoying telling other people to fly around dropping bombs on the Iranians while they stay safe in their bunkers thousands of miles away. It's easy to start a war if you won't be doing any fighting yourself.
What I am more interested in is how France is on the verge of taking a greater leadership role in NATO, but that is likely a subject of another thread.
Forgetting there that the US would want fat oil contracts. What's the point of killing so many people if you can't make a buck?
I think the US admin is a mix of those who are in it for the money, those who think they can force the second coming, and those who just really hate Muslims and/or brown people. Trump is clearly the former, Hegseth is probably mostly the latter with a dash of the middle.
There's also the tail wagging the dog, in the sense that Israel has an investment in destroying Iran, and Trump follows.
Oh, I'd put Trump in both the first and third groups.
I thought about that but his object permanence is so poor that while he's reflexively racist I don't think he's able to retain a direct homicidal hatred of a particular group unless members of it happen to be pissing him off at the time. He's perfectly happy with the Saudis and Qataris because they keep funnelling him money and gifts.
What I am more interested in is how France is on the verge of taking a greater leadership role in NATO, but that is likely a subject of another thread.
That noise you can hear in Colombey-les-Deux-Églises is surely De Gaulle spinning in his grave.
What I am more interested in is how France is on the verge of taking a greater leadership role in NATO, but that is likely a subject of another thread.
That noise you can hear in Colombey-les-Deux-Églises is surely De Gaulle spinning in his grave.
I thought it was France not being in charge he had a problem with.
A pundit on BBC Radio 4's World at One this afternoon opined that the Trump administration may be shifting back from regime change to simply reducing Iran's capacity to harm its neighbours or US interests in the region.
That way it becomes easier to claim victory after a few weeks bombing.
I suspect the White House would be happy with that as an outcome but even if Iran's navy is sunk and its ballistic missile capacity is 'degraded', it wouldn't stop low-level reprisals and terrorist attacks on 'soft' targets around the region and here in the West.
During the Vietnam War I think it was General Westmorland - 'Waste-more-land' - who said that the US should 'bomb Cambodia back into the Stone Age.'
I honestly don't think the man has a plan. He's flailing, and the way his mind is I'm not sure if he's swinging things or being swung, like some kind of really awkward multi-posted flail.
That likely means that this is going to be some very expensive flailing.
It seems we have actual US commanders telling troops that Trump has been “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran," and that the ongoing attack is actually going to bring about Armageddon. So at least there's that.
Comments
Again.
Where did I ever say that it disbanded as a result of the outbreak of WWI? I said it was disbanded AFTER the outbreak of WWI because it was proven ineffectual at preventing global conflict. That includes, but isn't limited to the outbreak of WW2. Maybe you are not a student of those wars, but I am. Do a quick google search.
The League could not stop major conflicts in the 1930s, such as the Japanese invasion of Manchuria (1932), the Italian invasion of Abyssinia (1935), and the onset of World War II in 1939.
Structural Weaknesses: The organization lacked its own military, and member nations were reluctant to provide troops, making enforcement impossible. The requirement for unanimous decisions often led to inaction.
Limited Membership: Major powers were absent or left the organization, including the United States (which never joined), and Germany, Japan, and Italy, who withdrew in the 1930s.
Rise of the United Nations: Following its failure, the League was deemed too weak to be reformed, leading to its replacement by the more robust United Nations, which held its planning conference in 1944
There was also that small act of aggression at Pearl Harbor, that the League was ineffectual at preventing.
You could be gracious and not put words in my mouth that never came out of it.
https://www.rawstory.com/military-2675544403/
If you can see down from that high horse you’re on (or are), you should be able to see that you very much appear to have said the League of Nations was formulated to prevent WWI. I really can’t see any other way to read what I’ve just quoted, especially since you added that WWII was “another example of [the League’s] ineffectiveness, which in context has to mean WWI was the first example.
Why did you specify "after the outbreak of WWI"? What is the relevance of that to the timing or motivation of the dissolution of the League?
Now that is really scary.
I've never been convinced that this 'Christ will return' business is actually true...that the world, as we know it, may be destroyed by the folly of dictators, and their weapons, is another matter. That seems much more likely.
I'll type this slowly so everyone can read and calm down....
AFTER the outbreak of WWI the Treaty of Versailles was signed and the League of Nations was formed. With me so far?
It was found to be weak and ineffectual and unable to fulfill it's stated purpose, which was, once again- "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security,"
Many conflicts ensued including another global conflict known as WWII.
The League of Nations was then abandoned, and then disbanded.
The United Nations was formed.
It has been found to be weak and ineffectual.
-This isn't complicated folks. Stay jaunty.
Please quote my typo that you are referencing.
Thank you for that. sigh.
"It was disbanded as ineffectual after the outbreak of World War I"
Do you really expect us to believe that you didn't mean to type "II" here rather than "I"?
And he actually continued to defend it AFTER it was pointed out that it was a typo, and at least once more used "WWI" in a context where only "WWII" would make sense.
You're welcome, though I'm still not quite certain what point you're trying to make, or what it has to do with the ongoing war in the Middle East.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/03/uk-considering-sending-royal-navy-destroyer-to-cyprus
@WhimsicalChristian - where did you get the idea that the British are withdrawing troops?
The point was simple for everyone but the nitpicking gnat-strainers.
My sole point was in response to @Crœsos who said:
That was inaccurate, or as I suggested- "slightly revisionist" as the point of the UN was, as it's predecessor, the League of Nations, really was to prevent all wars. The larger point was and why it's relevant to this thread topic (War) is that many feel that the UN is equally as ineffective at preventing wars today as ever, in either iteration.
"The United Nations was created in 1945 primarily to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war"
Why the "many feel"? If it's your opinion, own it without the backing of an ephemeral "many". If it's not, why bother?
If the UN was expected to prevent all wars (rather than merely having it as a laudable but unattainable aim) surely it would have been given up as a bad job in 1948 when giving away half of Palestine led to open war? Or at the Korean War, maybe.
I remain light-hearted here, but that is kind of the point. If the body is ineffectual, there's that word again, at doing what it's stated purpose is, then why bother with it? In essence, as can easily be demonstrated, nations at times, pay no heed to it's declarations, demands and decrees.
Is this an informal discussion, or is every member required to provide some sort of citation for everything they say? If so-- AI can be your new friend.
Yes, a significant number of people, including global leaders and the public, feel the UN is ineffectual at preventing wars, with polls indicating 63% of Americans rate its job performance poorly. Criticism centers on its inability to stop major conflicts, veto-driven paralysis in the Security Council, and a lack of enforcement power.
I'm going to exit the thread, as a diverse opinion seems so troubling for some to hear. Usually, among the mature, it would be stimulating and welcome, but alas.
World War I broke out and after that outbreak "the world" thought-- let's have a body-- a league of Nations-- United in purpose to prevent future wars. The experiment failed then, just as it is failing now.... and "many" people agree with that sentiment.
I bid you a good day. Feel better.
In my experience, reports from rawstory need to be taken with several containers of salt. They have been popping up on my feed for a couple years now, often with stories declaring firmly that such-and-such occurrence is "the end of Trump." As such, I question their objectivity. And accuracy. YMMV.
In general I'd agree - but in this case they had lifted the post from someone's substack and I didn't want to link to that -- and in any case it seemed to match similar stories coming from social media, not all of which were critical.
In any case, the watchdog that they are alleged to have made complaints to has since been contacted by the mainstream press:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/03/us-israel-iran-war-christian-rhetoric
For the record, I did quote the parts of your post to which I was referring, and my post didn’t say the you had “stated” anything.
Your jibe about intellectual dishonesty is misplaced.
Whether you think that makes it laudable or contemptible might say as much about you as about it.
Thank you. Missed that.
Will the western nations get more involved?
Iran has been responsible for at least two attacks in Australia and as I understand it Starmer said they were responsible for 20 in the last year in the UK.
What kind of "attacks" are we talking about? Cyber?
It's also worth noting that France never went to Iraq so we have form on not joining ill-thought out American ventures in the Middle East. Most of us feel quite proud of that in hindsight, although IMO it was almost certainly the right decision for the wrong reasons. (Essentially, (a) Saddam was Jacques Chirac's mate and (b) faced with a choice between pissing off the Americans and pissing off the Arabs, Chirac thought he had more to lose from pissing off the Arabs.)
I think the US admin is a mix of those who are in it for the money, those who think they can force the second coming, and those who just really hate Muslims and/or brown people. Trump is clearly the former, Hegseth is probably mostly the latter with a dash of the middle.
What I am more interested in is how France is on the verge of taking a greater leadership role in NATO, but that is likely a subject of another thread.
There's also the tail wagging the dog, in the sense that Israel has an investment in destroying Iran, and Trump follows.
I thought about that but his object permanence is so poor that while he's reflexively racist I don't think he's able to retain a direct homicidal hatred of a particular group unless members of it happen to be pissing him off at the time. He's perfectly happy with the Saudis and Qataris because they keep funnelling him money and gifts.
That noise you can hear in Colombey-les-Deux-Églises is surely De Gaulle spinning in his grave.
I thought it was France not being in charge he had a problem with.
That way it becomes easier to claim victory after a few weeks bombing.
I suspect the White House would be happy with that as an outcome but even if Iran's navy is sunk and its ballistic missile capacity is 'degraded', it wouldn't stop low-level reprisals and terrorist attacks on 'soft' targets around the region and here in the West.
During the Vietnam War I think it was General Westmorland - 'Waste-more-land' - who said that the US should 'bomb Cambodia back into the Stone Age.'
That didn't end well.
No clear war aims, no game plan.
We've been this way before.
That likely means that this is going to be some very expensive flailing.
So much for "fiscal responsibility."